Alferd Quierrez

As individuals in a highly mediated world, we are constantly exposed to media portrayals that shape societal perceptions. Whether intentional or not, these portrayals often reinforce stereotypes and generalizations, which can impact how different groups are viewed and treated. One stereotype I have personally encountered is the “military archetype”—a rigid portrayal of service members as either emotionally detached warriors or as broken individuals struggling with reintegration into civilian life. While aspects of these portrayals may hold some truth, they ultimately fail to capture the full complexity of military service and the individuals within it.

Media Construction of the Stereotype

The media frequently presents military personnel in one of two extreme ways:

1.) The Stoic Warrior: This portrayal features disciplined, battle-hardened individuals who are emotionally closed off, completely devoted to their mission, and rarely display vulnerability. Characters like Colonel Miles Quaritch in Avatar (2009) exemplify this stereotype, showing military figures as aggressive, unyielding, and lacking compassion. This stereotype overlooks the fact that service members experience a full range of emotions, engage in strong interpersonal relationships, and participate in humanitarian missions outside of combat.

2.) The Damaged Veteran: On the opposite end, media often depicts veterans as individuals who struggle with PTSD, homelessness, addiction, or difficulties in civilian life. While these challenges are real for some, this portrayal is often exaggerated or overly generalized. For example, American Sniper (2014) focuses heavily on Chris Kyle’s combat experiences and post-service struggles, reinforcing the idea that trauma is an inevitable consequence of military service. Although PTSD awareness is crucial, this portrayal overshadows the many veterans who transition successfully into civilian careers, education, and leadership roles.

Missing Perspectives and Biases

These stereotypes fail to acknowledge the diverse experiences of military personnel and often exclude key perspectives:

• Women in the military are rarely portrayed with nuance, despite their growing presence in combat and leadership roles.
• Non-combat roles (such as intelligence, medical, logistics, and administration) receive little attention, reinforcing the idea that military service is solely about combat.
• Diversity within the military is often overlooked, with portrayals skewing toward a narrow demographic despite service members coming from various racial, cultural, and socioeconomic backgrounds.

In many cases, media representations lack balance by emphasizing either heroism or trauma, leaving out the everyday realities of military life. The friendships, personal growth, and leadership skills developed through service are rarely explored in depth.

Examples in Media and Their Impact

• Example 1: American Sniper (2014)
  
  The film provides a gripping portrayal of combat but reinforces the idea that veterans primarily face hardship upon returning home. While PTSD is a critical issue, the narrative does not highlight the many veterans who adapt and thrive in civilian life.
  
  Watch a scene from American Sniper here.
  
• Example 2: Avatar (2009)
  
  Colonel Quaritch represents the stereotypical military brute—ruthless, emotionally detached, and driven solely by aggression. This portrayal contributes to a simplistic view of military personnel as violent enforcers rather than complex individuals.
  
  Watch a clip of Colonel Quaritch in Avatar here.

These representations shape public perception, influencing how civilians view service members and veterans. The “damaged veteran” stereotype, for instance, can make employers hesitant to hire veterans, assuming they are unstable or unable to function in a civilian workplace. Meanwhile, the “stoic warrior” trope can discourage military personnel from seeking mental health support due to fear of appearing weak.

Harmful or Beneficial?

While some aspects of these portrayals may raise awareness about military life, they can also be harmful. Misrepresentations can lead to stigma, employment discrimination, and unrealistic expectations for service members. However, they can also foster respect for the military, inspire recruitment, and increase awareness of veterans’ issues. The key is ensuring that media portrays military personnel with accuracy and depth, avoiding one-dimensional narratives.

Conclusion

The way the military is represented in media plays a crucial role in shaping public perceptions. While elements of truth exist within common portrayals, they often lack depth and fail to capture the full experience of service members. By advocating for more nuanced and representative storytelling, we can challenge stereotypes and promote a more accurate understanding of military life.

The Moon landing of 1969 is one of the most celebrated achievements in human history, but it has also been the subject of one of the most persistent conspiracy theories. For decades, skeptics have questioned whether NASA actually sent astronauts to the Moon or if the entire event was an elaborate hoax staged on Earth. This blog post explores the origins of the controversy, the persuasive tactics used to promote skepticism, and the current state of public opinion on the issue.

Background: A Historic Achievement Turned Controversial

On July 20, 1969, NASA’s Apollo 11 mission successfully landed astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the Moon, while Michael Collins piloted the command module in lunar orbit. Armstrong’s famous words, “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind,” echoed around the world as a symbol of human ingenuity and perseverance.

However, in the decades following the event, a subset of people began to question the legitimacy of the Moon landing. They argued that the United States government, locked in a Cold War space race with the Soviet Union, fabricated the landing to assert dominance over its rival. The controversy gained traction due to perceived anomalies in official footage and photographs, leading to one of the most famous conspiracy theories of all time.

The Origin of the Controversy

The Moon landing conspiracy theory began gaining momentum in the 1970s, largely fueled by Bill Kaysing’s book, We Never Went to the Moon: America’s Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle (1976). Kaysing, a former technical writer at Rocketdyne (a NASA contractor), claimed that he had insider knowledge proving the Moon landings were faked.

Several factors contributed to the growth of the conspiracy:

• The Vietnam War and Watergate scandal created widespread distrust in the U.S. government, making conspiracy theories more appealing.
• The inconsistencies in photos and videos—such as the apparent movement of the American flag and missing stars in the sky—gave skeptics fuel for their arguments.
• The rise of mass media and later, the internet, provided platforms for spreading the hoax theory more widely.

Persuasion Tactics and Propaganda

The Moon landing hoax theory has relied on various persuasion techniques to gain and maintain followers:

• Selective Presentation of Evidence: Conspiracy theorists often highlight anomalies in NASA’s images while ignoring explanations provided by scientists and experts. For instance, they claim the flag appears to wave despite the absence of wind, ignoring the fact that it was designed with a horizontal rod to keep it unfurled (Language of Persuasion).
  
• Appeal to Emotion and Distrust: Many conspiracy theorists play on public distrust of the government, arguing that if officials can lie about war, they can also lie about space exploration (The Conversation).
  
• Repetition and Social Proof: The more people repeat a claim, the more legitimate it appears. Conspiracies gain traction through books, documentaries (such as Fox’s Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?), and internet forums.
  

“Dark Patterns” and Online Manipulation: Websites and social media algorithms often push conspiracy content to users who show interest, reinforcing belief through confirmation bias. This is similar to tactics discussed in The New York Times article on e-commerce “dark patterns” (NY Times).

The Resolution: Public Perception Today

Despite the persistence of Moon landing conspiracies, the vast majority of scientists, historians, and the general public accept the Apollo landings as real. Multiple lines of evidence confirm their authenticity:

• Moon Rocks: Samples collected from the Moon contain unique properties not found on Earth (SMU Physics).
• Independent Verification: The Soviet Union, America’s rival at the time, tracked Apollo 11’s journey and would have exposed any deception.
• Laser Reflectors: Mirrors placed on the Moon by Apollo astronauts allow scientists to measure the Earth-Moon distance with lasers (Media Education Lab).
• Recent Satellite Images: Modern satellites, such as those from NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, have captured images of the Apollo landing sites.

While belief in the conspiracy remains among a small fraction of the population, it has been largely debunked through science and logical reasoning. The endurance of the Moon landing hoax theory serves as a case study in how propaganda and persuasive techniques can create and sustain public skepticism, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Conclusion

The Moon landing controversy exemplifies how misinformation can thrive when coupled with persuasive rhetoric, distrust in authority, and the amplification power of modern media. Understanding the techniques used to propagate such theories helps in identifying and resisting misinformation in other areas of public discourse. As media literacy experts emphasize, the key to debunking conspiracy theories is critical thinking, credible sources, and an awareness of the psychological tactics at play (Propaganda Media Education Lab).

For this assignment, I tracked my media usage again, but this time I focused on what kind of data I was sharing—both deliberately and unknowingly. After paying closer attention, I realized that almost everything I do online collects data in some way. This aligns with what I learned from The Four Kinds of Privacy article, which explains how companies gather different types of personal information and use it in ways we don’t always notice.

Morning: Social Media & News

• 7:00 a.m.: I woke up, turned off my alarm, and immediately checked Instagram and Snapchat. I liked a few posts, watched some stories, and replied to a couple of messages. Just by doing this, I contributed to behavioral data, as Instagram and Snapchat now know what content I interact with, how long I spend watching stories, and even what type of posts I like the most.
• 7:30 a.m.: While eating breakfast, I scrolled through Google News and clicked on an article about the upcoming election. This might tell Google that I have political interests, and it could influence what kind of news articles I see in the future. This connects to the AP article, “Americans Have Little Trust in Online Security”, which explains how platforms track our political views and interests, sometimes even selling that data.

Mid-Morning: Exercise & Streaming

• 9:00–10:30 a.m.: I went for a workout and used Apple Fitness to track my progress. The app collected biometric data, including my heart rate, calories burned, and step count. This kind of data could be used for fitness tracking, but it also raises concerns about privacy, especially since many health apps share data with third parties.
• 10:45 a.m.: While cooling down, I watched a few videos on YouTube. I noticed that my homepage was full of workout-related recommendations because I had watched fitness content in the past. This is an example of an algorithm shaping my feed based on my past behavior, something that is explored in the documentary “The Social Dilemma”, which discusses how platforms manipulate user behavior.

Afternoon: Online Shopping & Schoolwork

• 12:00 p.m.: I took a break and browsed Amazon for workout clothes. I didn’t buy anything, but after that, I started seeing ads for fitness gear on Instagram and Google. This is an example of how different platforms share data to target users with ads.
• 1:00–3:00 p.m.: I worked on an assignment using Canvas. While Canvas itself is safe, it still tracks how long I spend on assignments and logs my activity for my school.

Evening: Work & Gaming

• 4:00–9:00 p.m.: I worked my shift and used the POS system, which tracks customer purchases. While this doesn’t affect my personal data, it does show how businesses collect and use consumer behavior data.
• 10:00 p.m.: After work, I played an online multiplayer game on my tablet. Games track user behavior, like how often you play, in-game purchases, and chat interactions.

Reflections: How My Data Is Used

After tracking my media habits again, I noticed several patterns:

1. I share data constantly, even without realizing it. Whether it’s clicking on a news article or searching for products, companies are collecting data on me.
2. Algorithms control my content. The platforms I use shape my experience based on what they think I want to see, which can limit what information I’m exposed to.
3. Ads follow me everywhere. If I search for something on Amazon, I start seeing ads for it on other platforms. This proves how different companies share my data for targeted marketing.

This experience has made me more aware of my privacy settings. The AP article made me realize how little control we have over where our data goes. I plan to review my social media settings and limit the amount of data I give away to advertisers. Watching “The Social Dilemma” also reinforced how important it is to be mindful of how much time I spend on these platforms and how they influence my opinions.